4 ms·

> But the shiny things keep the poorer parents and mediocre teachers happy while keeping down cost per lesson per child. Baltimore spends more per student than

by rayiner 2mo ago

> But the shiny things keep the poorer parents and mediocre teachers happy while keeping down cost per lesson per child. Baltimore spends more per student than Switzerland. > As always the children of the rich and powerful get bespoke education... You could call it elegant education for a more civilized age... Education for more affluent people is often cheaper per student. The benefit richer students have is that, on average, their parents are smarter, more conscientious, etc.

Alien1Being 2mo ago
Baltimore does not spend more per student than Institut Le Rosey, the school of kings... (alumni include the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, the du Ponts) The fees are well over USD $150,000 a year. Philips Exeter (Zuckerberg's school ) is a bargain by comparison at $80,000 s year . These schools emphasis clear and analytical thinking and traditional education. In contrast the unfortunate children of the poor are subjected to everyone technology and education trend of the moment... Education in public schools has turned into AI slop being generated by poorly educated teachers.
- xyzzyz 2mo ago
  The Rotchschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Du Ponts would have done very well in life just as well had they went to public schools, while the alumni of Baltimore public school would not become Rotschilds and Rockefellers and Zuckerbergs had they gone to Pillips Exeter.
  - pasquinelli 2mo ago
    > The Rotchschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Du Ponts would have done very well in life just as well had they went to public schools sure, because of their names.
  - DrewADesign 2mo ago
    That doesn’t mean their schools aren’t better. Money isn’t the only reason having a thoughtful, rigorous and well-constructed education is important.
    - cindyllm 2mo ago
      [dead]
    - close04 2mo ago
      Education is essential in general. But as far as the classic definition of "success" is concerned (usually revolving around wealth of some kind), education is like luck. It could make the difference between 2 people in otherwise identical situations and status. But education alone sadly has a vanishingly small chance of competing with "old money" and generations of accumulated wealth and influence.
      - DrewADesign 2mo ago
        You’re essentially just repeating the point I was responding to.
    - somenameforme 2mo ago
      In many things with regards to education you're not paying/applying for a better quality system in and of itself, but for better quality peers. A public school with a e.g. Exeter quality class would have phenomenal results. By contrast an average public high school class at Exeter is going to have mediocre results. We even tested this. Around COVID many top universities rolled back their testing requirements for admittance under an equity based argument. Those universities are now mostly rolling back those decisions because they found that being less selective in enrollment resulted in significantly worse outcomes. Not exactly a surprise, well at least it shouldn't be.
      - TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
        I don't know how the US works, but in the UK public (private...) schools have incredible facilities for sports, the arts, personal lessons and tutoring, and so on. Meanwhile the state sector has a lot of crumbling buildings and hand-me-down textbooks. Public school kids still manage to screw up but they're more likely to land on their feet. Access to the upper levels in careers like law and finance is very much about "polish" (cultural identity) although working class kids sometimes gain entry, often as charity cases. At the same time public schools used to be notorious for brutal bullying. So survivors are often emotionally traumatised and have had empathy beaten out of them.
  - calepayson 2mo ago
    Ah, cause they inherited a ton of cash ya?
  - TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
    There is absolutely no evidence this is true. There are always a few first generation talents who build empires from dirt and nothing (for values of nothing that usually include war, grift, and slavery). But once an empire is established it becomes largely self-sustaining, and the inheritors get a huge head start over everyone else in their cohort.
    - zozbot234 2mo ago
      Inherited wealth is not self-sustaining at all: if you spend it down, it disappears. Most inheritors of large windfalls will not manage to pass down that wealth in turn; it takes a rare ingrained cultural attitude to make it genuinely "self-sustaining", and even then that really means leaving the wealth as it is and managing it well - not using it to pursue any immediate "head start" in living standards over your peers.
  - RandomLensman 2mo ago
    JD Rockefeller actually went to a public school (in the US, not UK meaning).
- rayiner 2mo ago
  Are you defining "poor" to mean everyone who doesn't send their kids to Philips Exeter?
- fakedang 2mo ago
  The public schools in at least my corner of Switzerland are better than the private schools, including Le Rosey. This seems to be the opinion of nearly everyone I have met. You only attend Le Rosey for the network.
  - phatskat 2mo ago
    "Public school" in a place like Switzerland is a different world than in the US though
- phatskat 2mo ago
  > Education in public schools has turned into AI slop being generated by poorly educated teachers. Sure, because no one (in government or school admin) wants to spend the money on more teachers. I also take issue with "poorly educated" - the teachers I know have a masters in education, but that only goes so far when you're dealing with an overcrowded and underfunded classroom.
disgruntledphd2 2mo ago
> The benefit richer students have is that, on average, their parents are smarter, more conscientious, etc. Yup. In general the benefit of schools in richer areas is better parents, rather than better schooling itself. Depressing, but true.
- techdmn 2mo ago
  I would avoid phrasing it as "better". Less wealthy parents are likely working more hours, have to spend more time on household maintenance (don't have a cleaner, can't afford grocery delivery), not to mention the overwhelming stress of struggling to make ends meet. It's not exactly a level playing field.
  - disgruntledphd2 2mo ago
    > I would avoid phrasing it as "better". Less wealthy parents are likely working more hours, have to spend more time on household maintenance (don't have a cleaner, can't afford grocery delivery), not to mention the overwhelming stress of struggling to make ends meet. It's not exactly a level playing field. Sure, and all of that was included in my comment. It's definitely not a judgement of parents, I am one and it's incredibly difficult even with our relatively high incomes.
  - rayiner 2mo ago
    > Less wealthy parents are likely working more hours The top income decile in the U.S. works 10% more hours than the bottom decile. Only a bit over half of low-income kids live in a household where a parent works full time.
    - skinfaxi 2mo ago
      Does that account for parents working multiple part-time jobs?
      - phatskat 2mo ago
        I also wonder how it accounts for salaried vs hourly - I work "40 hours" each week but I know that isn't a consistent 40, it's typically less and sometimes more, but I'm always getting paid a set wage whereas an hourly worker is getting paid exactly what they work (barring wage theft that's more common in lower-income jobs)
friendzis 2mo ago
> Education for more affluent people is often cheaper per student. A lot of this is accounting. You don't need to buy chromebooks for pupils when they already bring their own tablets/laptops. It's not unheard that if there is some initiative requiring equipment (music, sports, smartboards) parents fund that initiative outside tuition costs. Private schools tend to be controlled-admission and controlled-admission schools can have much narrower variance in skill level. The "dumb" kids do not swallow attention of the teacher and the "super-smart" kids do not get neglected. Richer parents can afford private tutors, closing the gap even further. On top of that, they tend to afford more time to coach their children in the right direction. All of that costs a small fortune, but is not visible if you compare total state funding of public schools versus admission / tuition costs.
- suddenlybananas 2mo ago
  Chromebooks, smartboards, tablets are all horrible for teaching.
- HDThoreaun 2mo ago
  I went to chicago public schools and Google gave every kid in the district free chromebooks. So inner city schools dont need to buy chromebooks for their students either it turns out. They were also terrible and pretty much only served to distract
globalnode 2mo ago
their parents are smarter? lol dayum.
robotblake 2mo ago
[flagged]
- rayiner 2mo ago
  What statement did you find antisocial? That richer people are on average smarter?
- hollerith 2mo ago
  >There's a reason that people don't like engaging with you . . . nobody wants to fucking talk to you. He has 708 times as much karma as you have, which would be impossible if no one wanted to read his comments. I saw your comment because I follow him, not vice versa.

by rayiner 2mo ago

Alien1Being 2mo ago

Baltimore does not spend more per student than Institut Le Rosey, the school of kings... (alumni include the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, the du Ponts) The fees are well over USD $150,000 a year. Philips Exeter (Zuckerberg's school ) is a bargain by comparison at $80,000 s year . These schools emphasis clear and analytical thinking and traditional education. In contrast the unfortunate children of the poor are subjected to everyone technology and education trend of the moment... Education in public schools has turned into AI slop being generated by poorly educated teachers.

xyzzyz 2mo ago
The Rotchschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Du Ponts would have done very well in life just as well had they went to public schools, while the alumni of Baltimore public school would not become Rotschilds and Rockefellers and Zuckerbergs had they gone to Pillips Exeter.
- pasquinelli 2mo ago
  > The Rotchschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Du Ponts would have done very well in life just as well had they went to public schools sure, because of their names.
- DrewADesign 2mo ago
  That doesn’t mean their schools aren’t better. Money isn’t the only reason having a thoughtful, rigorous and well-constructed education is important.
  - cindyllm 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - close04 2mo ago
    Education is essential in general. But as far as the classic definition of "success" is concerned (usually revolving around wealth of some kind), education is like luck. It could make the difference between 2 people in otherwise identical situations and status. But education alone sadly has a vanishingly small chance of competing with "old money" and generations of accumulated wealth and influence.
    - DrewADesign 2mo ago
      You’re essentially just repeating the point I was responding to.
  - somenameforme 2mo ago
    In many things with regards to education you're not paying/applying for a better quality system in and of itself, but for better quality peers. A public school with a e.g. Exeter quality class would have phenomenal results. By contrast an average public high school class at Exeter is going to have mediocre results. We even tested this. Around COVID many top universities rolled back their testing requirements for admittance under an equity based argument. Those universities are now mostly rolling back those decisions because they found that being less selective in enrollment resulted in significantly worse outcomes. Not exactly a surprise, well at least it shouldn't be.
    - TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
      I don't know how the US works, but in the UK public (private...) schools have incredible facilities for sports, the arts, personal lessons and tutoring, and so on. Meanwhile the state sector has a lot of crumbling buildings and hand-me-down textbooks. Public school kids still manage to screw up but they're more likely to land on their feet. Access to the upper levels in careers like law and finance is very much about "polish" (cultural identity) although working class kids sometimes gain entry, often as charity cases. At the same time public schools used to be notorious for brutal bullying. So survivors are often emotionally traumatised and have had empathy beaten out of them.
- calepayson 2mo ago
  Ah, cause they inherited a ton of cash ya?
- TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
  There is absolutely no evidence this is true. There are always a few first generation talents who build empires from dirt and nothing (for values of nothing that usually include war, grift, and slavery). But once an empire is established it becomes largely self-sustaining, and the inheritors get a huge head start over everyone else in their cohort.
  - zozbot234 2mo ago
    Inherited wealth is not self-sustaining at all: if you spend it down, it disappears. Most inheritors of large windfalls will not manage to pass down that wealth in turn; it takes a rare ingrained cultural attitude to make it genuinely "self-sustaining", and even then that really means leaving the wealth as it is and managing it well - not using it to pursue any immediate "head start" in living standards over your peers.
- RandomLensman 2mo ago
  JD Rockefeller actually went to a public school (in the US, not UK meaning).
rayiner 2mo ago
Are you defining "poor" to mean everyone who doesn't send their kids to Philips Exeter?
fakedang 2mo ago
The public schools in at least my corner of Switzerland are better than the private schools, including Le Rosey. This seems to be the opinion of nearly everyone I have met. You only attend Le Rosey for the network.
- phatskat 2mo ago
  "Public school" in a place like Switzerland is a different world than in the US though
phatskat 2mo ago
> Education in public schools has turned into AI slop being generated by poorly educated teachers. Sure, because no one (in government or school admin) wants to spend the money on more teachers. I also take issue with "poorly educated" - the teachers I know have a masters in education, but that only goes so far when you're dealing with an overcrowded and underfunded classroom.

disgruntledphd2 2mo ago

> The benefit richer students have is that, on average, their parents are smarter, more conscientious, etc. Yup. In general the benefit of schools in richer areas is better parents, rather than better schooling itself. Depressing, but true.

techdmn 2mo ago
I would avoid phrasing it as "better". Less wealthy parents are likely working more hours, have to spend more time on household maintenance (don't have a cleaner, can't afford grocery delivery), not to mention the overwhelming stress of struggling to make ends meet. It's not exactly a level playing field.
- disgruntledphd2 2mo ago
  > I would avoid phrasing it as "better". Less wealthy parents are likely working more hours, have to spend more time on household maintenance (don't have a cleaner, can't afford grocery delivery), not to mention the overwhelming stress of struggling to make ends meet. It's not exactly a level playing field. Sure, and all of that was included in my comment. It's definitely not a judgement of parents, I am one and it's incredibly difficult even with our relatively high incomes.
- rayiner 2mo ago
  > Less wealthy parents are likely working more hours The top income decile in the U.S. works 10% more hours than the bottom decile. Only a bit over half of low-income kids live in a household where a parent works full time.
  - skinfaxi 2mo ago
    Does that account for parents working multiple part-time jobs?
    - phatskat 2mo ago
      I also wonder how it accounts for salaried vs hourly - I work "40 hours" each week but I know that isn't a consistent 40, it's typically less and sometimes more, but I'm always getting paid a set wage whereas an hourly worker is getting paid exactly what they work (barring wage theft that's more common in lower-income jobs)

friendzis 2mo ago

> Education for more affluent people is often cheaper per student. A lot of this is accounting. You don't need to buy chromebooks for pupils when they already bring their own tablets/laptops. It's not unheard that if there is some initiative requiring equipment (music, sports, smartboards) parents fund that initiative outside tuition costs. Private schools tend to be controlled-admission and controlled-admission schools can have much narrower variance in skill level. The "dumb" kids do not swallow attention of the teacher and the "super-smart" kids do not get neglected. Richer parents can afford private tutors, closing the gap even further. On top of that, they tend to afford more time to coach their children in the right direction. All of that costs a small fortune, but is not visible if you compare total state funding of public schools versus admission / tuition costs.

suddenlybananas 2mo ago
Chromebooks, smartboards, tablets are all horrible for teaching.
HDThoreaun 2mo ago
I went to chicago public schools and Google gave every kid in the district free chromebooks. So inner city schools dont need to buy chromebooks for their students either it turns out. They were also terrible and pretty much only served to distract

globalnode 2mo ago

their parents are smarter? lol dayum.

robotblake 2mo ago

[flagged]

rayiner 2mo ago
What statement did you find antisocial? That richer people are on average smarter?
hollerith 2mo ago
>There's a reason that people don't like engaging with you . . . nobody wants to fucking talk to you. He has 708 times as much karma as you have, which would be impossible if no one wanted to read his comments. I saw your comment because I follow him, not vice versa.